The crux of the thesis developed in this essay is extensible to most aspects of the behavioral sciences and the research practices they implement in order to generate their generalizations and specifications regarding human behavior and how it can be manipulated. Essentially, what is argued here comes down to the following: Every time we answer a survey or participate in qualitative interviews where we assume the role of a subject, from whom information is extracted during the course of the ensuing dialogue, we are contributing to the development of techniques, qualifying as social engineering technologies; or, as Foucault would have it, Biopower. In other words, we are aiding the very people who are involved - although, in most occasions, unwittingly- in fostering the technologies required to regulate the existing social structure by forging interdictive techniques utilized for purposes of restoring behaviors that are in sycn with the way things stand currently; a state of affairs that relatively few of us have a stake in preserving. With that said, the following essay is, for all practical purposes, a summation of some of the insights offered by Foucualt’s geneology and the understanding of power he develops in opposition to its preemptive understanding, as it has assumed form in the more conventional sociological ideology introduced by Weber.

I believe the best way of revolting against the sexual identities that have been implanted into our bodies, such as homosexual, heterosexual and so forth, by the various medical community disciplines, such as psychiatrists, psychologists, demographers, and sociologists of the family, is to stop talking about sex as if it is a behavior serving as an indicator of some underlying psychic condition that, in turn, marks some deep and character defining identity; subsequently, coming to dominate the way we think about ourselves as well as the way - and these two dynamics are, of course, related to one another - others perceive us. All of this creates the context in which our actions; our abilities and penchants; our propensities; are interpreted. Consequentially, the ongoing undergoing of disciplinary treatment results in a condition where we come to defined ourselves in a modality that reflects the dispositions deposited in the discourse of disciplinarian institutions, which span through out all spheres of Modern society.

Essentially, what we can learn from Foucault - and what might be the most significant insight provided by Foucault - is the discourse we engage in regarding sex and the behaviors that we attempt to come to terms with by emitting descriptions of ourselves - consisting mostly of our private urges - and the associated behaviors and experiences that we have been taught to consider relevant to our sexual demeanors are not contributing to our sexual liberation; rather, the act of divulging intimacies of our selves, serves merely to proliferate the knowledge of disciplinarians who devise technologies - usually guised in the form of health-care - used to classify us and define us, as well as, to identify what courses of intervention enacted upon us can be used to normalize our conduct in society, so our existences conform to the established behavioral protocol, dictating the appropriate way for us to act.

If we attempt to reduce the ideology of which the preponderance of practitioners embody when correcting the social behaviors of those deemed to possess pathological perversions, we can probably use the following characterization quite felicitously: Individuals should be productive members of society, which entails working; sometimes having a family, according to the definition of a healthy family life developed by disciplinarians; we should avoid circumstances where we become dependencies of the state, such as welfare recipients; we should be prone to avoid criminal conduct; ect.; all of which can be understood - within the context of disciplinarian praxes - as the production of productive citizens.

However, such an existential transformation of our Selves into the standardized forms endorsed and implemented by disciplinarians, is by no means constitutive of a promotion of our own interests. Instead, we are simply re-tailored to conform with the expectations that have been developed and naturalized - into the realm of social knowledge that is taken-for-granted and rarely questioned - concerning the proper comportment of individuals belonging to society, which does not necessarily account for our own exploitations within the systemization of social relations comprising the society to which we contribute through our labors, (a term that expands to include most every aspect of our material beings; even child rearing and raising).

By means of our externalized expressions pertaining to, as subject matter, own behaviors and fetishes within the contours of the probing procedures that have been developed by practitioners of the behavioral sciences, we - inadvertently - contribute to our own regulation; a condition fostered by our own cooperation in the disciplinarian knowledge construction practices of those who make it their business to modify and, ‘correct,’ as well as appropriate the way we conduct our own businesses. In short, this compulsion to reveal the intimacies our of the private lives - a propensity that is undoubtedly, according to Foucault, a vestige of our Christian confessional tradition - is by no means an expression of a liberationist ideology; instead, it is symptomatic of our own cultural conditioning, which render us amenable to our own training by others; disciplinarians who seek to produce productive citizens.

Let us, after decades of subjugation by disciplinarian regimes such as psychology, acknowledge that sex is not the manifestation of a drive emanating from the invisible posit referred to as the psyche; rather, let us accept that the uses of our bodies to incite pleasures reflective of purely hedonistic calculations. There is no hidden logic to our sexual activities that needs to be teased out of us and rendered a spectacle for the appropriate quasi-health-care, behavioral specialists, who might treat us in order to correct what deviates from the established and entrenched normativity, which is associated in almost all respects to the Modern advent of Sexuality. How we should act as mothers and fathers - how we should conduct our sexual activities; not asking for compensation; nor providing compensation - the appropriate age we should be prior to inciting certain pleasures of the body through our own device or the devices of others - what sex should symbolically represent; and what it should not - and how much of our interests and pursuits should be driven by our sexual appetites - are all matters we can answer for ourselves without the interdiction of behavioral scientists, who implicitly premise all of their conclusions upon normative assumptions that represent values belonging to a social order to which they attempt to integrate the human objects of their practices.

However, to conclude that our indoctrination into the preemptive order of things is in our own interests speaks more of the interests that are vested in the way things stand now: An order that exploits some for the profit of others; an order that thrives off of the replication of the values with which we have been implanted - in order to be disposed toward a deferential posture in relation to the extant social structure - and those we are expected to instill in our children, in order to ensure progeny that will assume the same deferential attitude toward the complex of stratifications that organize our labors into a system of material production that benefit some while depriving others. Further this is a social structure that systematically identifies those who deviate from its prescriptions defining, ‘healthy behaviors;’ subsequently, labeling non-conformists with the encumbering baggage of social identities that are negatively interpreted and valued, according to the cultural codes that guide disciplinarians as they strive to identify social pathologies worthy of interdiction. This social intervention occurs in manifold forms, of which some salient examples come to mind: The dosing of children with Ritalin in order to adjust their modify and control their behaviors; The incursions made by social workers into the family affairs to private individuals, enforcing protocols for appropriate family interactions that the social workers deem as the, ‘Right,’ way to act. The positioning of these disciplinarian institutions in civil society makes them all the more deleterious to our personal sovereignty, because they fall outside the scope of our avenues for participating in policy formation; even though the activities conducted by the tribes of disciplinarians certainly have political consequences.

Therefore, there is nothing Authentic - a term meant to entail the connotative properties with which Heidegger endowed it - resulting from our introspective examinations of Self, in order to supply the data that become the property of behavioral scientists; to those who correct us and makes us conforming and docile; to those who make us deferential to the exploitation of our very selves.

Russell Cole

If you enjoyed this post,
Subscribe to the Free Midwest Populist Party Newsletter

Please consider a donation of $1 or more
to help keep this website active.

Spread the Word:

Related Posts:

--For the lack of a Solzhenitsyn!
--Review of "Bad for Democracy," by Professor Dana D. Nelson
--Greenspan: Patron Saint of America’s Affluentocracy

Tags: foucault, higher consciousness, labor, Modernity, psychology, sexaulity, workplace
Categories: Commentary